MELLORCATalk to Mellorca
Impact›Software Spend
Software Spend · Impact

Paying for Software Licences Nobody Uses

Unused licences look harmless one seat at a time. Across dozens of tools, renewals and former employees, they become a recurring operating expense that quietly compounds.

Mellorca Impact·Software, Applications & Subscription Spend·31 August 2026

The pain is not the licence. It is the absence of control.

Most businesses do not deliberately decide to waste money on software. The waste appears gradually. A team buys a tool for a project. A new employee is given the same package as everyone else. Someone leaves, but the licence remains assigned. A department upgrades to a premium tier for one feature and never reviews the decision. Another team buys a second product that overlaps with something already owned.

Nothing appears serious because each individual charge is relatively small. The financial pain becomes visible only when the business looks across the full application estate and asks a harder question: which licences are producing enough value to justify another month or another year of spend?

Why businesses tolerate unused software

SaaS purchasing is intentionally easy. That helps speed, but it removes much of the natural friction that once forced technology purchases through central procurement. Card payments, monthly billing and self-service upgrades allow spending to spread across departments without a complete inventory. That is why many businesses cannot list all the applications they use.

Flexera's 2026 State of ITAM reporting says wasted spend is still rising in some software categories, including SaaS and AI, while many organisations lack complete visibility. It reports that only 36% of respondents now have complete IT visibility, and only 31% report visibility into AI software. Its 2025 reporting also highlighted rising SaaS waste and growing efforts to track usage and right-size contracts. The practical lesson is simple: allocation is not the same thing as utilisation.

How the pain becomes money

  • Unused seats: recurring fees continue for people who rarely or never use the product.
  • Duplicate functionality: two or three applications may do substantially the same job.
  • Premium-tier leakage: users stay on higher plans after the feature that justified the upgrade is no longer needed.
  • Orphaned accounts: subscriptions survive employee departures or project closures.
  • Renewal inertia: annual contracts renew before anyone evaluates current value.
  • Support and governance overhead: every extra platform creates identity, security, training, integration and vendor-management work.
The commercial signal: if nobody can produce a current list of applications, owners, renewal dates, assigned seats and actual usage, the business cannot credibly claim that its software spend is controlled.

A simple way to calculate your exposure

Do not start with an industry benchmark. Start with your own invoices and usage records.

Annual unused-seat cost
unused seats × monthly cost per seat × 12
Annual over-tier cost
users on unnecessary premium tiers × monthly price difference × 12
Duplicate-tool cost
annual spend on products whose core function is materially duplicated elsewhere

For example, if 18 unused seats each cost R420 per month, the annual direct exposure is R90,720 before counting duplicate tools, support time or premium-tier overspend. That is not a benchmark. It is simply the arithmetic of the example contract.

A worked example

Consider a 120-person logistics company. A first review of card statements and supplier invoices finds 46 recurring software charges, against the 20 or so that the IT manager knew about. Three separate teams pay for file-sharing or e-signature tools that overlap with the office suite the business already licenses. The design team has eight seats on a premium plan, but only two people use the features that justified it. Eleven seats on the project-management tool belong to people who have left.

None of these findings needs specialist software. They come from putting payment records next to a staff list and asking each budget holder what the tool is for. The value is in the joined-up view, not in any single line item.

The cost is wider than the invoice

Software sprawl also changes the cost of operating the business. More applications mean more user accounts to create and remove, more data locations to govern, more integrations to support, more vendor terms to monitor and more systems for employees to learn. A licence may be inexpensive while the surrounding operating cost is not.

Unused accounts are also a security exposure, not only a cost. Microsoft's guidance on managing inactive user accounts notes that accounts are not always deleted when employees leave, and that these obsolete accounts are a security risk. It suggests using the last sign-in date to identify them, and observes that in many organisations a reasonable inactivity window is between 90 and 180 days. The access side of this problem is covered in former employees retaining system access.

This is why a cancellation exercise based only on invoice value is too narrow. A useful review asks whether the application is necessary, whether people actually use it, whether another tool already covers the requirement and what operational burden the product adds.

How to read usage data carefully

Low usage does not always mean low value. A finance user may open a tax tool only at year end, and a disaster-recovery tool should ideally sit unused. Before removing a seat, confirm the usage pattern with the business owner. Equally, a licence that is used daily may still be redundant if another tool does the same job. Usage data starts the conversation; it does not end it. A structured way to make these calls is set out in how to decide which software to remove.

When this becomes commercially urgent

Act immediately when software spend is rising faster than headcount or revenue, when departments cannot agree on which tools are approved, when renewals regularly surprise finance, or when former employees still appear in licence reports. A merger, restructure, cost-reduction programme or identity-management project is another strong trigger, because these events often expose application duplication that normal operations hide.

What good looks like

A controlled software environment does not mean forcing everyone onto one platform. It means every application has an accountable owner, a business purpose, a known cost, a renewal date, an approved user population and evidence of use. Finance can see the commercial commitment. IT can see access and risk. Business teams can explain why the tool exists.

Ownership is the control that holds the rest together. Without a named person who must justify each renewal, the register decays within a year. That is why software renewals need a confirmed business owner.

The objective is not to minimise software spend at all costs. The objective is to stop paying for software that no longer earns its place.

Practical next actions

  1. Export the last 12 months of software and card-based subscription payments.
  2. Create one application register with owner, purpose, monthly or annual cost and renewal date.
  3. Compare assigned seats with actual active usage where the vendor exposes it.
  4. Identify employees who have left, duplicate tools and unused premium tiers.
  5. Put a value review 60 to 90 days before every material renewal.
  6. Require a named business owner for every new application purchase.

If time is short, start with steps 1 and 4. Matching the payment export against the current staff list usually surfaces the quickest savings, and removing leavers' seats needs no debate about value.

Bottom line

Unused licences are rarely a dramatic crisis. That is precisely why they survive. The pain is a recurring tax on poor visibility: money leaves the business every month for capacity that creates little or no operating value. Once usage, ownership and renewal data are visible, much of that waste becomes straightforward to remove.

Sources and further reading

Related Mellorca reading

Method noteFinancial examples are illustrative unless explicitly attributed. Replace sample assumptions with your own licence prices, usage and operating costs before making a business decision.